Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)

In other words you have a closed mind.You are unwilling to even consider the validity of 10,000 years of age marked by tree rings in two differrent species on opposite sides of the earth, it's too dangerous to your worldview, one best described as fantasy. When confronted with the reality you claim You raised the issue, but when confronted with the evidence and asked to deal with it you say When faced with evidence that counters your pet fantasy you run from it.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : toyp

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

There is one simple way to disabuse me of this impression: deal with the issue.Do you agree or not that tree rings count actual annual layers of years that are the result of the earth's orbit around the sun -- that the tree rings correlate with the annual orbits?(note: we don't need an exact correlation to calibrate the tree ring chronology -- it can be valid for 10,000 years +/- 5% say -- if that makes you more comfortable, after all good calibration identifies and quantifies sources of error eh?)If not, why and by what evidence -- support your position.If you agree we'll move on to the next issue.Stop shuckin and jivin and deal with the issue.Demonstrate that my impression is wrong.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

From Message 32 Tranquility Base asserts I can't help but notice that you failed to attempt to discuss the tree ring information, ...... or the in fact annual varve layers of Lake Suigetsu (which are formed by an entirely different process than the micro-layers of Mt St Helen), ...... prefering to restate your straw man position that is unrelated to actual dating methods actually used by actual scientists.From this I assume that this is the best information you have, and it is insufficient to disprove the ages measured by these systems: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)

quote:

---

... the minimum age of the earth is:

• 8,000 years by annual tree rings from Bristlecone pine in California.
• 10,000 years by annual tree rings from Oaks in Europe (different environment and location)
• 45,000 years by annual varve layers of diatoms in Lake Suigetsu, Japan (different biology and location)
• ... corroborated by Carbon 14 (C-14) radiometric dating (limit 50,000 years by half life)

---

And that is just for starters.THIS is the thread to discuss this issue -- if you care to back up your assertions.I also notice that YOU asked if there was a dendrochronology thread, and that until you address them here you are avoiding addressing the issue YOU raised.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

In replying to Message 1, my post, Message 12, quoted material that also addressed misuse of radiocarbon dating to date diamonds: Confidence replied with Message 39: And my response was Message 47: Where I noted that I could not find any information on how they had eliminated background radiation and contamination levels, just the assertion that they had done so.Confidence responded with Message 51: My latest response, Message 52, is to direct this discussion to this thread: Thus I have transfered the arguments to this post for continued discussions.It should be noted that the constraints on radiocarbon dating include

• the sample must come from an uncontaminated organic source (so any sample with intruded mineral or other material, as in partly fossilized, or any sample subject to radiation, is of questionable value),
• the sample must come from an organism that acquired its carbon from atmospheric carbon (either plant material or consumers of plant material or consumers of consumers of plant material that used atmospheric CO₂ and other gases that can include the atmospheric altered Nitrogen 14 to Carbon 14),
• it is incumbent on the sample collector to ensure that these conditions are met, and not on the testing lab, and
• the maximum age that can be detected with repeatable reliability is 50,000 years (after that the sample size of remaining 14C is so small as to be highly variable due to the probabilities of radioactive decay, and it is near the level of normal background radiation that causes false positives)

There are known sources of non-atmospheric carbon - marine organisms that use or reuse old carbon (shellfish, consumers of shellfish, etc), called the "resevoir effect" - and there are known sources of radioactivity contaminated oils and coals and the like.Thus it is easy for an unscrupulous sample collector to achieve false results by intentionally collecting bad samples, and at least ONE indicator that someone is intentionally misusing the dating method is if they cite dates beyond the capability of the method.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Thanks for the reply, Confidence.As you will already have noted there is a substantial need to not just critique 14C dating, but why all the various dating methods correlate so well. We can come back to this issue later, but first let me say that these involve several different annual layer systems, several radioactive systems and one astronomical system that all give data consistent with the rest of the data -- in spite of being three entirely different mathematical trends (linear, radioactive decay and planetary rotational decay) and that the annual layer systems also capture climate information that is also consistent between them.This gives a very high degree of reliability to the ages measured by these systems, ages much in excess of 6,000 years by any count. That they have such a high degree of reliability on the age of these things goes far further than just thinking up how old things are, it is a well measured and deliberated, discussed and dissected age that we are talking about.And where the reliablity is low, due to any number of factors, scientists are happy to note "age - indeterminate" and say "we don't know" rather than post some arbitrary date. Can you absolutely guarantee that there has been absolutely no contamination by current modern air-born 14C in any of those samples?Can you absolutely guarantee that there was no contact with other contaminated material?Or is it reasonable to say that below a certain level we just cannot guarantee that a sample won't show some contamination from being handled, and say below this level we cannot measure with any accuracy?The fact that this limit -- 45,000 to 50,000 years -- is STILL far older than any YEC scenario should mean that this is not what the real problem is for YEC's creatortionistas (those who intentionally distort the truth).When done with proper scientific controls the ages measured by 14C are sufficiently consistent from the present through to 50,000 years ago to render critiques like the ones by the 'RATE' group to be insignificant.If they vary wildly after that, it still does not invalidate ages up to 50,000 years ago, does it?Age is also usually measured by at least two different methods, to ensure contamination is not involved or some other anomaly (like the resevoir problems), and both ages are usually reported for comparisons. When you get two consistent ages you have reliable data, and when you get two inconsistent ages you have unreliable data.The 'RATE' group looks for unreliable data to evaluate: that is not honest science. All they prove is that they have found a specific set of unreliable data, but that does nothing to invalidate those cases where the data IS reliable.One thing the 'RATE' group has NOT been able to do is collect samples that date anomolously by two different methods to the same anomolous young or old age: when they can do that - have a two to one advantage - then and only then will their claim of eliminating contamination and background radiation have some relevance. I still only see denial of contamination and background radiation and not evidence to the contrary.As noted by Percy in Message 53 and Coragyps in Message 54 there is ample sources for radioactive contamination in diamonds, both from 13C being converted to 14C by neutron accumulation or by 14N being reconverted to 14C in a manner similar to how it is converted in the atmosphere.As noted in previous discussions regarding coal and 14C, there is also a high degree of correlation of anomalous high 14C content with radioactivity and none with age once past 50,000 years.BUT: the end argument is that age measured out to 50,000 years by 14C is an accurate and dependable method when done correctly and with the proper sample controls and with the constraints on 14C noted (and quoted by you).This age alone is enough to refute a YEC model of the earth: falsifying it at 51,000 years does you no good.If you don't believe me then start at the beginning of this thread, Message 1, and walk through the tree rings and the climate information, through Lake Suigetsu and into the 14C correlations, and then ask again.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

And something like one in a trillion atmospheric carbon atoms are carbon-14, so the beginning amount of 14C in any organism is very very small, much less than 13C and much much less than 12C.And after 57,300 years (10 half-lives) it is reduced by decay to (1/2)^{^10} = 0.001 or 0.1% of that original amount.When do you reach the point where +/- one atom makes a big difference in the measured age eh?And how easy is it for one nitrogen atom or one 13C atom being converted to 14C to make a big difference in the measured age when you get to that point?Thanks.Edited by RAZD, : changed subtitle

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

hello again, whatever.contamination cannot trump correlations because it cannot explain the correlations -- why they exist instead of random numbers.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This has been refuted before Charley, Bret, Craig, johnfolton, tim, tom, The Golfer, ... whatever (did you get a medal for the most user names yet?).You still need to deal with the clay layers being annual layers that give the same ages as the biological samples: thus positing contamination of one does not refute the result of the other and the correlation between them - what it shows is that contamination is NOT an issue.The data from the lake also correlates with other data for age and climate, both in the tree rings and in the ice layers. How can it do that with contamination in one system being the answer? How can they all be wrong in exactly the same way, time and amount?Maybe it's time you looked further than Lake Suigetsu, seeing as you seem to have a hang-up here. Look at the layers from the ice cores - north, south and inbetween.Start with the low latitude ice cores are from the Peruvian altiplano, a high plateau ranging in altitude from 3500 to over 4000 meters above sea level. Rising over it is the Quelccaya ice cap with a summit elevation of 5670 m and a maximum summit thickness of 164 m.Paleoclimatology | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)This is a slide showing the marked bands on the ice in South America, alternating dust layers with ice layers:
Paleoclimatology | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)From the slide description:

quote:

---

The Quelccaya cap terminates abruptly and spectacularly in a 55 m ice cliff. The annual accumulation layers clearly visible in the photograph are an average of .75 m thick. While snow can fall during any season on the altiplano, most of it (80-90%) arrives between the months of November and April. The distinct seasonality of precipitation at Quelccaya results in the deposition of the dry season dust bands seen in the ice cliff. These layers are extremely useful to the paleoclimatologist because they allow ice core records to be dated very accurately using visual stratigraphyy, which is simply the visual identification of annual dust layers in ice records (in most ice cores, annual layers become indistinct at depth, forcing paleoclimatologists to rely on less-accurate ice-flow models to establish chronologies; at Quelccaya, on the other hand, annual layers are visible throughout the core).

---

Quotes from later slides:

quote:

---

When scientists drill into the ice cap, they recover what are essentially fossil pieces of ice containing crucial information about past climate.

​

hree deep core sections (from 122m, 130m, and 139m) show distinct annual bands produced by the deposition of dust during the dry season (dry season dust layers are represented by triangles). While annual bands provide accurate relative dating (the age of each ice band is known to be a year apart from directly adjacent bands), paleoclimatologists also search for absolute dates within a core chronology. The surface of the ice cap provides one absolute date. For example, the top layer of a core drilled in 1983 is known to date from 1983; scientists can then date deeper layers relative to the surface. Scientists also attempt to locate absolute dates deeper in the core to improve the accuracy of the chronology. At Quelccaya, for instance, a thick layer of volcanic ash was found in a layer initially dated at 1598. Looking into historical records of colonial Peru, paleoclimatologists found that a massive eruption of the volcano Huaynaputina had occurred in 1600. Using the absolute date of 1600 for this layer, they were able to revise their chronology and improve its accuracy.

​

One of the most salient features in the last millennium of climate history is the Little Ice Age, a loosely-defined period of cold temperatures and increased climatic variability that has been documented in many parts of the globe.* As this figure shows, the Little Ice Age is identified in the Quelccaya climate record as a period of 'colder' (more negative) d18O roughly bracketed between 1550 A.D. and 1900 A.D.

---

These cores don't extend to the time of the tree ring data, but they correlate with the climates in those rings, specifically with "the little ice age," and they also correlate with the climates in the other two ice core data fields.The next ice core is from the Dunde Ice cap in tibet
Paleoclimatology | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

quote:

---

For over 40,000 years, snow has been piling up on this 60 km2 ice cap deep in China's sparsely inhabited interior.

​

After hauling their equipment to 5325 m above sea level, scientists set up a small gas-powered drill. While there are minor variations in drilling technology and techniques, all drills use the same basic idea: a drill bit is lowered into the core hole and cuts out a cylinder of ice that is then carefully extracted from the core sleeve and analyzed both on site and in the laboratory. Since Quelccaya is at the edge of the moist Amazon Basin while Dunde is wedged between two deserts, it is not surprising that accumulation rates are much higher at Quelccaya. Indeed, the annual average accumulation at Quelccaya in meters of water equivalent is 1.15 m compared to just .43 m at Dunde. Like Quelccaya, around 80% of Dunde's precipitation falls during the wet season. The dry season is clearly identified in the core record by the layers of dust from surrounding deserts visible in this ice segment.

​

While Quelccaya provides high-resolution clues to the last 1500 years of climate, Dunde stretches back over 40,000 years, well into the last ice age.

​

The most prominent feature in the Dunde ice record is the transition between the last glacial maximum (in the Pleistocene epoch) and the present Holocene epoch.

---

And matching up to the dates for Lake Suigetsu ... and the climate pattern. They correlate age with climate, with ice, with clay & diatoms and leaves ....Then go on to the two big core data sets:

• Ice Cores in Greenland have annual layers going back 110,000 years.
• Ice Cores in Antarctica have annual layers going back 650,000 years now (extended from the 422,776 years in the article above with new research).

They also correlate with the climate for Lake Suigetsu to match the ages due to annual layers there and the 14C data. Then they go on to much greater ages.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added little ice age info, Dunde Ice core info

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Let's look at this from a slightly different perspective.Radioactive decay is an exponential decay curve, not a constant rate over time.The effect of contamination and background levels is an additive error - it can cause high readings, but not low readings, thus making things appear younger than they really are - but it adds the same error to any sample.If we have two curves, one "clean" data and one "contaminated" data, they would look something like this (with the "contaminated" one above the "clean" data curve)There is the same vertical displacement at any point between the curves, where the y-axis is the amount of 14C and the x-axis is the time for decay. This delta between the curves is intentionally exaggerated here to make the point.The point is that the error induced by contamination and background levels is low initially, so the age data result is reliable.But certainly by the time you have reached point {1} above you have more error induced by the background radiation and contamination than you have available data, and the method is unreliable at that point because of that fact.The point where the method becomes unreliable is based on the difference between the curves and the amount of error one is willing to put up with ... perhaps somewhere around 10% (using real delta curves not these exaggerated ones)Does that make the issue a little clearer for you?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : pasted rest of post, formating

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

You do have fun don't you?Either you don't understand much relevant here or you are intentionally twisting this information for the fun of it. Last time I checked 16,500 was not between 11,000 and 12,000 years.http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html

quote:

---

After about 30,000 years ago, the Earth's climate system entered another big freeze-up; temperatures fell, deserts expanded and ice sheets spread across the northern latitudes much as they had done 70,000 years ago. This cold and arid phase which reached its most extreme point sometime around 21,000-17,000 years ago (18,000-15,000 radiocarbon years ago) is known as the Late Glacial Cold Stage (and is also sometimes called the Upper Pleniglacial).

​

The point at which the global ice extent was at its greatest, about 21,000 years ago (18,000 14C years ago) is known as the Last Glacial Maximum. The Last Glacial Maximum was much more arid than present almost everywhere, with desert and semi-desert occupying huge areas of the continents and forests shrunk back into refugia. But in fact, the greatest global aridity (rather than ice extent) may have been reached slightly after the Last Glacial Maximum, somewhere during the interval 19,000-17,000 years ago (17,000-15,000 14C years ago).

---

That doesn't make the peat dating problematic eh? The glacier scrapes the surface ahead of it, piling it into moraines, and when that Last Glacial Maximum retreated it allowed the peatland complex to invade the area left by the retreating glacier at that time.Subsequent deposition of snow that becomes ice over those areas from snow-pack accumulation and the like would bury those peatland complexes without scraping them into moraines, as glacier movement would do.And your article does not talk about the peatland complex forming earlier than had been previously thought but later:

quote:

---

In addition to pinpointing a new source of methane that helped end the ice age, the team's work has established a much earlier date for the formation of these bogs. Until a related discovery announced two years ago by the same researchers, scientists had thought that the northern peatlands did not start forming until 8,000 years ago. But the new research suggests that by that time, 50 percent of today's northern peatlands were already formed.

---

More. Only 110 have been counted. From the original post on this thread:
http://www.gsf.fi/esf_holivar/johnsen.pdf

quote:

---

The climatic significance of the deeper part of the GISP2 ice core, below 2790 m depth and 110 kyr age, is a matter of considerable investigation and controversy. ... Ice in GISP2 below 2790 m depth is folded and tilted, and shows evidence of unconformities [ Gow et al., 1993]. The O of O in GISP2 above 2790 m matches almost perfectly with the Vostok record [ Sowers et al., 1993]; below that depth, it is far noisier and cannot be aligned with the smoothed Vostok signal [ Bender et al., 1994].

---

The antarctic ice is now dated\counted to 650,000 years.And the climate data correlate between the two for the ages in discussion here. You are missing the point: it is the same age in both ice cores and in Lake Suigetsu and the same climate -- they correlate. They match. And by doing so they validate each other. Not matching would invalidate the concept.Different entirely different annual layer counting systems, dependent on totally different processes for making the layers, getting the same ages and the same climate patterns.You can't just hand wave "inflated" and "uniformitist" over this data and not explain why they have exactly the same apparent ages AND climates. That's not an explanation of the data but a denial that it contradicts your beliefs.Denial of contradictory evidence is not faith, it is delusion:

quote:

---

delusion” -noun
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

---

If both system ages were due to errors those errors should be from different causes that would make different errors in the ages and climates. The ages AND the climates should not match if they were due to errors.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Not as long as we keep coming back to the correlations. I'm not sure he understands (or chooses to understand) the basic difference between these systems of measurement.He is essentially saying that ¹⁴C can diffuse up and distort the record. The problem is that this is a linear function, and can only distort another linear function by changing the slope.The diatom\clay layering system is quasi-linear - the layers compress with age so each deeper layer is thinner for the same amount of annual deposition of clay and diatoms.The ¹⁴C system is exponential decay - the amount lost each year is less than was lost the year before, being based on a fraction of the amount in existence each year.What he needs to change is the straight line (from layers) to the curved line (from radioactive decay):
... in order to "explain" the age of the Lake Suigetsu data as showing ages that are much older than he wants it to be.The Ice Core layering data is also quasi-linear - the layers compress with age so each deeper layer is thinner for the same amount of ice\annual accumulation.Conversely the layers that measure the climate changes are NOT linear or curved -- they ARE a ratio between stable isotopes of ¹⁸O atoms and ¹⁶O atoms trapped in the ice when it was formed:http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node2.html

quote:

---

The ¹⁸O value is determined from:
¹⁸O = 103ppt{(¹⁸O/¹⁶O)_s - (¹⁸O/¹⁶O)_std}/(¹⁸O/¹⁶O)_std
where subscript s refers to sample, std refers to standard mean ocean water (SMOW), and ppt is parts per thousand.

​

Independent calibrations of the oxygen isotope-temperature relationship have been developed through the analysis of GISP2 borehole temperature, allowing conversion of isotope-derived surface-temperature histories to temperature-depth profiles [ Cuffey et al., 1992]. Thus it follows that variations with depth in the ¹⁸O of ice in a core reflect past variations of temperature with time at a study site.

---

(some conversion of text for readability)So you have one quasi-linear system matching climate to a radioactive decay exponential curve and another entirely different quasi-linear system matching climate to a stable isotope ratio (essentially a flat curve with variations for temperature\climate), and BOTH give the same climate at the same age.There is no "diffusion" of ¹⁴C in the Ice Core data. There is no stable ratio of ¹⁸O in the Lake Suigetsu data.Thanks.Edited by RAZD, : added formula

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

That still leaves 50,000 years of straight annual layers with no assumptions to hand wave away.Or to accept that the world is really older than you want to believe it is. There is a lot of evidence of things less than the age that YEC's posit for the age of the earth -- that does not invalidate an old earth.There is a lot of evidence of things more than the age that YEC's posit for the age of the earth -- that DOES invalidate a young earth.The issue is not the evidence that you accept, but the evidence that you deny that contradicts your position.

quote:

---

delusion” -noun
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

---

Again you have provided no mechanism for this "miraculous" correlation between extremely different and divergent systems ... see Stating "it is not a mystery" does not take the mystery away. In that specific location, in spite of expecting to find it only 8,000 years old ...And they are finding rock that is much much older. Rock that shows the effects of scrapping by ice after being formed by geothermic processes.And it other parts of the world -- they are STILL finding evidence of life that is still much much much older.You are cherry picking tid-bits of information and ignoring the total body of evidence that refutes your position.Dodging the issue of correlations does not do you any good: the evidence is still there whether you {believe\understand\accept} it or not.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Not only that but:

quote:

---

Changes in the numbers of bacteria present within non-polar ice appear to be related to changes in climate. For example, in an earlier cooler, wetter period in S. America, the abundance of local vegetation increased and presumably therefore the amounts of airborne particulates will have also increased. Particulates transport bacteria, and the result is an increased number of bacteria in Andean glacial ice formed at that time.

---

There appears to be another correlation with layers and climate from another independent system to record climate information within the annual layers.There is also the matter of the pollen in correlating to climate. We know that pollen from a specific plant, the alpine / tundra wildflower Dryas octopetala, is a marker for climate change, and has the Younger and Older Dryas Periods named after itYounger Dryas - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The Younger Dryas stadial, named after the alpine / tundra wildflower Dryas octopetala, and also referred to as the Big Freeze [1], was a brief (approximately 1300 70 years [1]) cold climate period following the Blling/Allerd interstadial at the end of the Pleistocene between approximately 12.7 to 11.5 ky BP [2], and preceding the Preboreal of the early Holocene. In Ireland, the period has been known as the Nahanagan Stadial, while in the UK it has been called the Loch Lomond Stadial.

​

The Younger Dryas is also a Blytt-Sernander climate period detected from layers in north European bog peat. It is dated approximately 12,900-11,500 BP calibrated, or 11,000-10,000 BP uncalibrated. An Older Dryas stadial had preceded the Allerd, approximately 1000 years before the Younger Dryas; it lasted 300 years [3].

---

As noted in the main article, this period also shows up in the Lake Suigetsu climate data, even though the markers for climate in that system have nothing to do with bacteria or pollen.Pollen samples have been used before to study climate change, and now that there is a technique that can isolate pollen from ice cores without contamination, I expect more correlations to follow.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : fixed paragraph order

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Looks like I need to update the OP again ... Seasonal variations in dust concentrations too ... and

quote:

---

At c. 2,464 meters down, their dating of the volcanic ash found there (57,300 1700 BP) agrees very closely with the Z2 layer of volcanic ash found in Atlantic sea cores which is dated 57,500 1300 BP.

---

another correlation.

quote:

---

A high reading of sulfuric acid was also found in the GISP2 core at 1623 BC (3573 BP) which correlates very well with the tree-ring dates of 1625 and 1628 BC for the Santorini eruption.26

​

Reaching back even further, in addition to sulfuric acid
peaks, tephra has been found in both the GRIP and GISP2
ice cores which matches the composition of tephra from
particular volcanic eruptions around 10,300 BP and 52,700
BP.

---

and another.Thanks.Edited by RAZD, : and another

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

False.This also has nothing to do with correlations so no further response is necessary.Please stick to the topic.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.